Safiya Malik

The Delhi High Court has set aside the conviction of a Sales Tax Officer, previously sentenced under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, citing inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and lack of substantive evidence. The Court stated that the demand for illegal gratification was not conclusively proven and that mere possession of marked currency notes was insufficient to establish guilt under the Act.

The case originated from a complaint filed by Chattar Singh, a garment businessman, regarding an alleged demand for a bribe related to his sales tax registration application. According to the prosecution, Inspector Sandeep Yadav, assigned to verify Singh’s application, initially demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000, later reducing the amount to Rs. 3,000. Singh, unwilling to comply, approached the Anti-Corruption Branch and lodged a complaint against Yadav.

A sting operation was conducted under the supervision of Inspector Sudesh Kumari. During the operation, Singh was instructed to hand over the pre-marked currency notes to the accused at the Sales Tax Office, ITO. However, Yadav was not present, and the transaction allegedly took place with another Sales Tax Officer, the appellant, instead. The prosecution claimed that Rs. 1,500 was recovered from the appellant, and a further Rs. 200 from a stenographer, Reena Sapra. A chemical wash of the appellant's hands and pockets reportedly tested positive for phenolphthalein powder, which was used to mark the bribe money.

During trial proceedings, the prosecution presented thirteen witnesses, including Singh (PW7), panch witness Om Prakash Gupta (PW10A), and the trap-laying officer Sudesh Kumari (PW12). The complainant, Singh, testified that after processing his application, the appellant allegedly indicated that the work was complete. According to Singh, Chartered Accountant Sanjeev Miglani advised him to hand over the money, which he then did. However, Singh’s testimony regarding whether the appellant explicitly demanded a bribe was inconsistent and was not corroborated by the other witnesses.

The appellant maintained his innocence throughout the trial and contended that he was falsely implicated. He asserted that there was no direct evidence linking him to any prior demand for bribe money.

The Special Judge, based on the recovery of marked notes and positive phenolphthalein tests, convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fined Rs. 10,000 on each count, with default imprisonment of three additional months per count.

The Delhi High Court, while reviewing the conviction, examined the necessity of proving demand as a prerequisite for establishing offenses under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court referenced the Supreme Court judgments in B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), stating that mere possession and recovery of bribe money does not automatically establish guilt unless prior demand and acceptance are independently proven.

The judgment recorded that:

"Mere proof of acceptance would not by itself be sufficient and proof of demand is a sine qua non for securing a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act."

The Court critically analysed the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, noting that the complainant’s testimony regarding the alleged demand lacked corroboration. The Court observed that:

"The complainant in his testimony stated that he did not meet Sandeep Yadav on that day. He rather stated that his CA, Sanjeev Miglani informed him that Sandeep had asked them to meet the appellant. This part of testimony was not corroborated by Miglani."

The panch witness, Om Prakash, also failed to support the prosecution’s case, as his testimony did not include any statement about the appellant demanding a bribe. The Court found that:

"Most pertinently, neither the complainant nor the panch witness informed the raiding party about the non-availability of Sandeep Yadav and meeting arranged with the appellant."

Further, the Court pointed out discrepancies regarding the bribe amount. The initial complaint stated that Rs. 3,000 was demanded, but only Rs. 1,500 was recovered from the appellant, raising doubts about the actual transaction and its nature. The lack of corroboration from independent witnesses further weakened the prosecution’s case.

Given the lack of evidence establishing prior demand and inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, the Court concluded that the conviction was unsustainable. The judgment stated:

"Upon a careful analysis of the testimonies as well as the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that even in terms of the testimony of complainant which remains uncorroborated on the material aspects, does not inspire confidence to conclusively prove the allegations against the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) of PC Act."

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the appellant’s conviction and ordered the cancellation of bail bonds and discharge of sureties. The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be communicated to the concerned Trial Court and Jail Superintendent for necessary compliance.

Case Title: Yogesh v. State of Delhi

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1340
Case Number: CRL.A. 697/2009
Bench: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri

[Read/Download order]